The Fuhrer removes the Orlando State Attorney from office

It wouldn't be a threat of retaliation without you acknowledging the initial action was an abuse of discretion. Glad to see you coming around...baby steps.

 

Regardless of whether the courts got it right, the sad part I take away from this is that nobody views the courts as nonpartisan anymore.

The new normal is every decision with political implications being dismissed by the other side as politically motivated.

Trump loses in Manhattan, and the reaction from the left is to not question the rule of law or the prejudices of the court or the jury. The reaction from the right is to pin it entirely on those things.

DeSantis wins in Florida, and the reaction from the left is entirely pin it on the prejudices of the court. The reaction from the right is to argue from the position of authority: the classic, "the courts agree with DeSantis."

There's a simple way of solving this, but it'll never happen because it requires the party in power making it more difficult to appoint their preferred judges on the risk that the other side will remove those barriers the second they have power.

 

It would be a threat of retaliation if the person who issued the threat perceives the initial action as an abuse of discretion, which is exactly how gator_lawyer perceives it.

Boy, you struggle with logic don't you.

 

Come on. I don't think it's just a prediction. You're not just a spectator on this. You have a dog in that fight.

 

They probably aren't anymore, unfortunately.

But I'm not sure where we go from here. When the courts are no longer respected as an institution of legal authority, there's really not much left holding the system together. Everything becomes a game of "might is right."

And don't worry, I'm not pretending like I wasn't doing this two seconds ago with the Manhattan decision. That's precisely my point. We're all doing it now. Right or wrong, it doesn't bode well.

 

That's the politically correct answer, but respectfully I don't believe that.

You may not want to put yourself out there in supporting retaliation, but you certainly have no interest in stopping it. You're more likely to pressure the people trying to prevent retaliation than the people threatening to retaliate. That's having a dog in the fight. You're just not publicly endorsing any side.

 

God-given rights and the rule of law must pre-exist democracy and are therefore more important.

Democracy is important as well of course, but it means nothing without rights and the rule of law. Courts and law enforcement are the traditional institutions that recognize rights and enforce the rule of law, respectively.

I'm not sure you understand my point. My point is that you gave me this whole sanctimonious "holier than thou" routine on principle on the basis that I warned about retaliation from the right, when the reality is we're not so different.

Do I love retaliation from the right? No. But I'm sure as Hell not going to stop it when it is simply coming in the form that Democrats have chosen by weaponizing the justice system, abolishing the filibuster, etc. It's not unprincipled to hold the other side to their own standard, no matter how much you want to pretend that it is. It's not more unprincipled than to hold a legal argument you personally disagree with, but is recognized by a court, against the opposing party. It's not unprincipled to reap the benefits of rules you otherwise don't like, but have been systematically established.

You clearly understand this. It would just be nice if you would come out and admit it.

 

While it is true that the Supreme Court was a weak institution for a large chunk of our history, democracy has never been the great defender of rights, and there is evidence the founders didn't see it that way either. The power of the populace is hedged by all sorts of things, such as the courts, the power of the states, hybrid representations of the populace and the states in the form of the electoral college, etc.

If the people were the great guardians of rights, all it would take for slavery to be permissible is slavery being popular. The courts may not be perfect, but at least it's their legal and professional duty to recognize rights and treat Constitutional rights as the Supreme Law of the Land, even if it goes against democratic sentiment.

Authoritarian: "of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people."

Definition of AUTHORITARIAN

You support Alvin Bragg, you support Jack Smith, you support Merrick Garland, and you support the President who appointed Merrick Garland. You support a President who has openly dismissed the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. You support a President who prides himself on governing in a manner that disregards their rulings and therefore, the rule of law. You support a regime actively trying to rig an election by incarcerating their arch-rival who happens to be the frontrunner in the 2024 Presidential election. And you support the party responsible for slavery, Jim Crow, and an administrative state (which you still support) not accountable to the people.

 

Nancy Pelosi disagrees.

"People think that the President of the United States has the power for debt forgiveness. He does not. He can postpone. He can delay. But he does not have that power. That has to be an act of Congress."

Supreme Court uses Nancy Pelosi words to overturn student loan cancellation

Then retaliation should not bother you in any way. It is consistent with your standards and is simply reaping the benefits of standards the right may disagree with, but are systematically set.

The Democratic Party in the South supported slavery. Spin all you want.

Interesting, if liberals ran the Republican Party 100 years ago why do the liberals of today support Democrats of 100 years ago like Woodrow Wilson and FDR?

The only switch that happened with respect to racism is that Democrats switched from the party of pro-White racism to the party of anti-White racism.

Most Republicans today don't care about someone's skin color. They strive for a culture of "color-blindness" where people don't care or consider someone else's race. While it is now mainstream progressive dogma that Black people cannot be racist and White people are inherently racist. Democrats think race is everything and is central to one's identity. Republicans think it's melanin levels and mostly inconsequential to one's identity.

So much nonsense here.

Democrats treat SCOTUS like a super-legislature in using it to unilaterally enshrine gay marriage (redefining marriage) and abortion into law. Then have the audacity to suggest that's the way Republicans treat it for simply coming out with decisions you don't like. It's gaslighting on absurd levels.

For goodness sakes, you condemned the Dobbs decision which is a case that specifically made abortion more democratic. It put it back in the hands of the legislature, yet you hate it. Why? Not because the Constitution actually protects abortion (it doesn't). You like the court acting as a super-legislature when it rules in your favor, such as on issues like abortion.

As far as your view of the administrative state, yeah, that is an unbelievably naive way of looking at it. It's just another way for politicians to pass the buck. And the vast majority of Americans see this.

The people allowed slavery and the people ended slavery. You live by the sword and die by the sword I guess.

Remind me, was Brown v. Board of Education before or after the end of Jim Crow?

Again, at least the Court has a duty to recognize rights and interpret where they begin and end. Most "people" can't name them let alone interpret their scope based on historical context. So it is completely irrational to suggest that democracy is the chief "guardian of rights." Democracy can exist without rights (apart from perhaps the right to vote), it just wouldn't be particularly good or useful. A democratic society without cultural fabric, coherent values, or any sort of binding moral principles is not much prettier than an undemocratic society without these things. That's why rights must pre-exist democracy. And no, the court doesn't always get it right. In fact, they get it wrong an awful lot. But at least it's their job to get it right. If the people want to vote for a candidate with no respect for the Constitution, or our nation's founding principles, that's their prerogative. And that's the difference.

 

Okay. You're a lawyer. Answer me this: which branch of government has the authority to tax and spend for the general welfare?

Okay. If it isn't, why do you care?

As I later mentioned. The Democratic Party went from the party of pro-White racism, to the party of anti-White racism.

That does not necessarily suggest that the Republican Party became the party of pro-White racism.

Woodrow Wilson served over 100 years ago and well before the civil rights movement. You like the administrative state he paved the way for. He was also ranked ahead of Ronald Reagan in this ranking issued by Poli Sci experts.

Worth noting that Donald Trump was dead last in this ranking. Both Biden and Wilson were ahead of Ronald Reagan. Obama was in the top ten. FDR was #2, ahead of George Washington. You tell me whether these "experts" surveyed were left-leaning or right-leaning.

Presidential Greatness Ranked by Political Science Experts - by Carly Winchell - Ark Valley Voice

I'm appealing to the Brown v. Board of Education decision to highlight that where rules democratically issued don't necessarily respect rights, it is the role and duty of the Supreme Court to stop them when they don't respect rights.

Again, at least the Court has a duty to recognize rights and interpret where they begin and end. Most "people" can't name them let alone interpret their scope based on historical context. So it is completely irrational to suggest that democracy is the chief "guardian of rights." Democracy can exist without rights (apart from perhaps the right to vote), it just wouldn't be particularly good or useful. A democratic society without cultural fabric, coherent values, or any sort of binding moral principles is not much prettier than an undemocratic society without these things. That's why rights must pre-exist democracy. And no, the court doesn't always get it right. In fact, they get it wrong an awful lot. But at least it's their job to get it right. If the people want to vote for a candidate with no respect for the Constitution, or our nation's founding principles, that's their prerogative. And that's the difference.

 

Even assuming that’s a legitimate delegation of authority, which I don’t think it is, what “national emergency” is Biden using that warrants debt forgiveness? The pandemic?

He can’t have it both ways. He can’t on one hand say the economy is flourishing, while on the other justify student debt forgiveness as late as May 2024 because we’re still recovering from the pandemic.

Biden-Harris Administration Announces Additional $7.7 Billion in Approved Student Debt Relief for 160,000 Borrowers | U.S. Department of Education